This chapter discusses the commercialization of solidstate lighting (SSL) as well as government programs that support or hinder that objective. Chapter 1 provided an overview of current light-emitting diode (LED) application types and the current sales and efficiency of the products. This chapter provides a discussion of LED lighting markets, the present and potential, as well as public policy that affects commercialization, including a discussion about the Solid-State Lighting Program at the Department of Energy (DOE), legislation, regulation, voluntary programs and procurement programs by federal and/or state governments, industry voluntary programs, as well as development of codes and standards. Finally, there is a brief discussion about public policy outside the United States.
The penetration of SSL has increased dramatically since the 2013 Assessment of Advanced Solid-State Lighting report (NRC, 2013). There remains, however, a large opportunity for SSL products worldwide. Although there has been a considerable decrease in the price of LEDs and an increase in the quality, they are still, and probably always will be, more expensive to purchase than traditional lighting technology. Owing to the higher price, the market share will be larger in terms of revenue generated than number of units sold. Further, the number of replacement lamps that have not been converted to LED will continue to decrease, and at such time the absolute number of units sold may decrease, even though LEDs may dominate on a percentage basis.1
Strategies Unlimited (DOE, 2015) estimates that in 2014, LED lamps were 5 percent of unit sales, 41 percent of total lighting revenue, and 3 percent penetration of the installed base. In its 2016 research and development (R&D) plan, Solid-State Lighting R&D Plan, DOE reported that the global installed base of LED lamps had risen to 6 percent by the end of 2015 (DOE, 2016a). In 2020, it is projected that LED lamps will be 42 percent of unit sales, 76 percent of revenues, and one-third of the installed base. Major suppliers, including Acuity Brands, OSRAM, Philips, and Zumtobel report that LED products now account for over 40 percent of total revenues. For 2014, LED Inside has estimated that for the global industry as a whole, LED sales were $20 billion, which is 26 percent of total lighting revenues. Table 2.1 compares several forecasts of global lighting revenues. While the table reveals differences even when comparing similar products, all projections show significant growth in LED market shares ranging from 67 percent to 80 percent by 2022.
The global adoption of LEDs, shown in Figure 2.1, is only just beginning. Strategies Unlimited forecasts that SSL penetration of the global installed base will grow rapidly from less than 5 percent in 2014 to greater than 30 percent by 2020.2 As can be seen in Table 2.1, different sources of market data report somewhat different results, but they all indicate a growing market share for LED lighting in lamps and luminaires. Examining the causes for these differences is beyond the scope of this report, but the trends between the different data sources are remarkably similar in terms of year-to-year growth. The global lamp revenue forecast is shown in Figure 2.2 and indicates that the revenues will peak around the year 2020. In contrast, luminaire revenue forecast, shown in Figure 2.3, are projected to grow during this time period at least until 2022.
The forecasts of LED adoption in the United States are similar to global forecasts in that LEDs currently account for
1 When discussing estimates of LED adoption rates, one should distinguish between unit sales, sales revenues, and their installed base.
2 Philip Smallwood, presentation at the Strategies in Light Conference, February, Las Vegas, Nev., 2015.
TABLE 2.1 Global Market Share of LED Lighting Measured as a Percentage of Total Lighting Revenue
|Source||Scope||2014 (%)||2016 (%)||2018 (%)||2020 (%)||2022 (%)|
|LED Inside||Lamps and luminaires||26||34||54||—||—|
a small but increasing share of the lighting market. DOE’s SSL forecasts state that by 2020, SSL should account for nearly half of all lighting shipments in the United States and about 40 percent of the installed base.
Figure 2.4 shows the shifts forecast for lighting technologies from 2013 to 2030. LEDS accounted for less than 4 percent of the installed base (in lumen-hours) in 2014. As can be seen in Figure 2.4, the U.S. installed base is currently dominated by linear fluorescent and high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, which have a large number of installations, large number of operating hours, and high lumen output per lamp. By 2030, LED light is forecast to account for 88 percent of all lumen-hours for general illumination. This is predicated on continual price decreases and efficiency increases. Table 2.2, taken from the DOE 2016 SSL R&D Plan, shows the doubling of the installed base of LED lighting from 2014 to 2015. A more detailed discussion of the lighting submarkets—directional lighting, decorative, linear fixture, and so forth—can be found in the report Energy Savings Forecast of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications (DOE, 2016b).
Table 2.3 shows forecast U.S. market share in 5-year intervals—2020 through 2035, with 2015 as the base year—of LED lighting shipments in terms of lumen-hours
TABLE 2.2 LED Installations and Energy Savings by Application
|Applicationa||2014 LED Installed Penetration (%)||2015 LED Installed Penetration (%)||2015 LED Units Installedb (Millions)||2015 Energy Savings (tBtu)||Estimated Saving Potentialc (tBtu)|
a See Appendix 8.1 for definitions of SSL Lighting Applications and products within each category.
b Installations are the total cumulative number of LED lamps and luminaires that have been installed as of 2014.
c The estimated savings potential is the theoretical energy savings that would return from switching all lighting fixtures “overnight” in the given application to the best LED product available in the DOE LED Lighting Facts database (in 2015). It is important to note that these “best of” LED products have efficacies much higher than those most commonly available.
d Values may not add due to rounding.
SOURCE: DOE (2016a).
TABLE 2.3 Forecasted U.S. LED Installed Stock and Market Share of Lighting Shipments by Sector and by Submarket
|LED Forecast Stock Results for the Current SSL Path Scenario,a by Sector (in lumen-hour)|
|Current SSL Path||2015||2020||2025||2030||2035|
|LED Installed Stock (million units)b||424||2,740||5,500||7,040||7,860|
|LED Installed Stock Penetration (%)||6||30||59||78||86|
|LED Penetration by Submarket for the Current SSL Path Scenarioa (in percent)|
|Low and high bay||6||38||68||80||86|
|Area and roadway||21||66||91||97||99|
|Total LED Installed Stock Penetration||6||30||59||78||86|
a The Current SSL Path Scenario assumes current levels of investment and effort from DOE and industry.
b Installed stock for the DOE SSL Program Goal scenario is not provided as there are negligible differences between scenarios. LED installed stock is presented in terms of lighting systems (lamp(s), ballast, and fixture are counted as one unit).
c The “other” submarket is included to accommodate lighting products with unknown applications; however, it will not be explored in great detail in this report.
SOURCE: DOE (2016b, pp. 18 and 26).
for nine common lighting applications. This table employs a methodology that has been updated versus previous DOE SSL market analyses (DOE, 2016b; p. 6). The following are some observations from these data:
- As of 2015, LEDs had a much larger market penetration (19 percent) in the outdoor sector than in the indoor sectors (ranging from 5 percent to 12 percent, depending on application). By 2035 both are anticipated to have large penetrations: outdoor (greater than 90 percent); indoor (greater than 80 percent).3
- In 2015, at 21 percent, the area and roadway subsector and building exterior subsector are tied for the highest level for LED penetration. Area and roadway is predicted to be 99 percent by 2030.
- As a result of the early success of small directional MR16 replacement lamps, the directional submarket has the largest penetration of the indoor market sector at 11 percent.
- The projections indicate that LED lighting will make up nearly half of all lighting shipments (48 percent) by 2020 and 86 percent by 2035.
3 DOE found that LED penetration into the installed base was 6.1 percent indoor and 17.9 percent outdoor, using the aforementioned since-updated methodology (DOE, 2016a, p. 26). There is no comparable number for the indoor penetration in the newer study (DOE, 2016b).
A secondary effect of the LED revolution in lighting is the projected peaking around 2020 and the subsequent decline of the industry revenue to approximately one-third of the historical levels by 2030,4 as found for example by Pike Research (2011). If this became reality, a very large percentage of jobs currently in the lighting industry would be lost, and perhaps a higher percentage in the United States.
Organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are still very much in the R&D phase with little customer demand and few products in the market in the United States. (The technology is described in more detail in the section “Key Core Technology Challenges for OLEDs” in Chapter 3.) The low market share is mainly the result of high cost of manufacturing (discussed in Chapter 5) and, consequently, high product prices. OLED lighting is also not projected to be as efficacious as LED lighting in the foreseeable future (see Chapter 3) and is for these reasons not expected to contribute significantly to lighting installations or provide measurable energy savings nor jobs in the United States. The Korean manufacturer LG is the largest OLED manufacturer in the world, and most of the market activity today is in Korea, with a few demonstration projects in other countries. Based on the practical maximum surface brightness of an OLED panel (3,000 candela per square meter [cd/m2]), current OLED technology cannot be used to make products that would replace general service incandescent lamps or general service fluorescent lamps—these products simply do not have enough surface area to allow the total light output from OLED products to be equivalent to the traditional technology products. OLED technology is therefore best suited for replacing entire luminaires, such as 2' × 2' or 2' × 4' fluorescent troffers. It is too early to regulate these products for energy efficiency, and indeed DOE has not initiated any rulemakings that would cover OLED products.
FINDING: OLED technology for lighting applications is still very much in the R&D phase with very little customer demand and very few products on the market.
FINDING: For the foreseeable future, the market penetration of OLED lighting products will be negligible because of high cost.
The congressional appropriation for fiscal year (FY) 2016 included $24 million for DOE’s SSL programs, as well as an additional $5 million toward the 21st century category of the L-prize.5 This represents a relatively steady level of funding since 2007 (see Figure 2.5). The split between LED and OLED R&D spending is shown in Figure 2.6 for the past 5 years. These R&D programs have consumed approximately 40 percent of DOE’s lighting program budget over this period of time. Finally, Figure 2.7 shows the split between Core, Manufacturing, and Product R&D spending6 for FY 2015 for the combined LED and OLED R&D programs. The Core Technology R&D sleeve comprises the majority of R&D spending and addresses the primary emitter, the downconverters (e.g., phosphors and quantum dots) and physiological impacts of light (DOE, 2016a; p. 144). This includes R&D to reduce current droop of blue emitters and to close the “green gap.” The product development area focuses on encapsulation including tuning the refractive index to improve light extraction (DOE, 2016a; p. 148). DOE’s program is focused on improvements in energy efficiency as well as on lighting quality. DOE holds annual stakeholder meetings to determine the R&D needs that industry cannot support on its own, and the process has received little to no criticism. The rest of this section gives some detail on the various elements of the program.
DOE—through its consultants and national laboratories—publishes several reports on SSL on a regular basis. Navigant Consulting has been publishing reports characterizing the U.S. lighting market since 2002, the most recent in 2012. These reports are generally regarded as very useful by stakeholders and cited often in various contexts. DOE also publishes a multiyear energy savings forecast (DOE, 2016b), which is based on the projected average LED efficacy shipped in a given year. There are also other organizations that publish forecasts of energy savings7 relating to the adoption of SSL. Finally, DOE also publishes a report on LED adoption (Navigant, 2015)—this report gives estimates of the average and best efficacy for each application in that year, and energy savings estimates, based on two scenarios: one is an estimate of what energy savings have been achieved during that year, and the other is a hypothetical estimate of the potential energy savings based on a scenario where the best efficacy products available at that time were to be used instantaneously to convert all U.S. lighting installations to
5 Congress provided that “If the Secretary finds solid-state lighting technology eligible for the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, specified under section 655 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, $5,000,000 is included in addition to funds for solid-state lighting research and development.” See Joint Explanatory Statement, Division D: Division D-Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016. p. 28.
6 These are defined as follows: “Core Technology Research—Applied research encompassing scientific efforts that focus on new knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, with specific application to SSL. Core technology research aims to demonstrate scientific principles, technical application, and application benefits. Product Development—The development of commercially viable, state-of-the-art SSL materials, devices, or luminaires using concepts from basic and applied research. Manufacturing R&D—Research to develop advanced manufacturing approaches to reduce cost of SSL sources and luminaires and improve product consistency and quality, with the additional benefit of supporting the development of U.S.based manufacturing” (DOE, 2016b; p. 1).
7 See, for example, York et al. (2015). In this report, Jennifer Amann projects 1.3 percent savings in U.S. electricity consumption in 2030 from advanced commercial lighting design and controls, and Dan York predicts 1.1 percent savings from residential LED lamp replacements.
SSL—called the overnight potential. Figure 2.8 is a summary of the actual and overnight potential energy savings from the 2016 SSL R&D Plan (DOE, 2016a). The potential source energy savings of nearly 5 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) is roughly in agreement with the 2035 projected source energy savings in the recent energy savings forecast report, although roughly two-thirds higher than an earlier report in that series (DOE, 2014b) that had predicted nearly 3 quads in savings by 2030. The two product applications with the biggest potential energy savings are low/high bay fixtures and linear fixtures, where LED technology replaces fluorescent and HID lighting.
In addition to the above reports, DOE funds laboratory and field evaluations, which are published as CALiPER and GATEWAY reports, respectively. These evaluations have been well received by all stakeholders.8,9
Roughly 40 percent of the funding that is appropriated to DOE for SSL is spent on R&D programs. As stated at the beginning of this section, for FY 2016, Congress appropriated $24 million and an additional $5 million to be awarded as the 21st century prize. This funding is expected to be spent on multiyear programs that were started 2 to 3 years ago, as well as some new programs. The R&D funding is split approximately 2:1 for LEDs and OLEDs over the multiyear duration of the programs. Both LEDs and OLEDs face some fundamental challenges that are described in Chapter 3 in this report,10 but DOE’s R&D funding is not limited to those challenges, supporting some programs that could be seen as short-term product development (i.e., on assembled luminaires in specific applications) that industry should fund. On the longer time scale, the market is moving toward color tunable lighting and connected lighting and is offering lighting systems as opposed to components (lamps, luminaires, drivers, controls) to provide more value added solutions to consumers and commercial end users. DOE has shown interest in these issues, but it is not a given that public money should be spent on programs where the market demand will develop naturally.
In addition to DOE funding specifically on SSL, the Secretary of Commerce has been asked by the President to administer the National Network for Manufacturing Initiative (NNMI),11 which is growing from the currently funded 9 institutions to approximately 40 over the next 2 years. Several other agencies are involved, including DOE, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
DOE also funds various competitions relating to SSL. At the higher end, Congress has authorized funding for the L-prizes (Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prizes), which are intended to “spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency SSL products to replace the common incandescent light bulb.” Three such awards were authorized, one for an LED replacement for the 60 W incandescent lamp, another for an LED replacement for the PAR 38 halogen lamp, and the third for a 21st century design, which is expected to have features not seen in traditional technology. Thus far, one such L-prize has been awarded to Philips Lighting for the development of an LED light bulb to replace the 60 W incandescent light bulb. DOE revised the L-prize for the development of an LED replacement for the PAR 38 lamp in 2013 before suspending it in 2014 when it was judged that current products fell far short of reaching the goal.12 The final congressional appropriation for FY 2016 is for the 21st Century lighting product, for which there is funding at the $5 million level, as mentioned previously. The L-prize is, in practice, limited to large corporations that have the resources to invest in significant development, perhaps requiring investments larger than the prize itself.
In addition to the L-prizes, DOE—in collaboration with the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) and the International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD)—has provided funding for the Next Generation Luminaires Design Competition. This competition is open to anyone and small businesses can participate.
Finally, DOE sponsors many stakeholder meetings on SSL, such as workshops on R&D development and market development, which occur annually, and other roundtable and working group meetings relating to SSL.
In its FY 2017 budget request, DOE requested $3.8 million for the 21st Century lighting product prize. The prize will challenge industry to create a lamp with 150 lm/W with high lighting quality. As mentioned in the caption to Figure 2.5, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance have proposed that this budget line item be increased to $5 million.
Although the installation of medium base LED lamps increased six-fold from 13 million to 202 million between 2012 and 2015 (Figure 2.9)—there were fewer than 400,000
8LED Magazine regularly publishes articles on these reports.
9 In FY 2015, more than 5,000 CALiPER reports were downloaded from the DOE SSL website, and a video highlighting the key findings of CALiPER’s T8 series of reports marked almost 10,000 views. (Karen Marchese, Akoya Online, personal communication to Martin Offutt, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, July 5, 2016.)
10 Specifically, green LEDs, current droop in LEDs, light extraction from OLEDs.
12 Residential Lighting, “DOE Suspends L Prize PAR38 Competition,” June 27, 2014, http://www.residentiallighting.com/doe-suspends-l-prizepar38-competition.
installations in 2009—these LED lamps, commonly used in residential applications, account for just 6 percent of installed lighting. This is a result of about a 90 percent cost reduction since 2008 (DOE, 2016d) (see Figure 2.9). In 2010, there were about 3.27 billion incandescent lamps in the residential sector (DOE, 2014b). In order to continue and accelerate the penetration of LED bulbs in this sector, there needs to be education of consumers so that they are aware of the advantages of these new bulbs, especially of the increased energy efficiency. In the 2013 National Research Council report, there was a finding and recommendation (6-7) about the need for DOE to partner with industry and states for a public outreach program. No such program has been initiated. Industry representatives meeting with the committee (CREE, GE, Philips) indicated that a joint government-industry consumer education program could fuel the increase of the sale of LED bulbs.
Labels13 help, but there is still confusion among consumers. The appropriateness of lamps for different applications may not be clear to consumers, such as lamps that are not recommended for use in enclosed luminaires. An example of this may be a surface-mounted luminaire enclosed with a lens, where the lamp may overheat and fail.14
There are potential non-R&D funds for development of such a joint program. The FY 2017 budget request for “buildings, emerging technologies”—of which lighting R&D is one component—contains a new $6 million item called Tech-2-Market (T2M) to bridge the gap between R&D and commercialization by providing data and information and partnering with manufacturers and users, and since the lighting manufacturers are interested in working with DOE, an SSL pilot education program could be initiated. Such educational program could be directed to the lighting design professionals and take place in the form of webinars, workshops, and presentations at such conferences as Lightfair, the IES Annual Conference, and the IALD Conference.
FINDING: Industry remains interested in establishing collaborative programs for outreach and education to address issues arising from the widespread adoption of SSL products.
RECOMMENDATION 2-1: The Department of Energy, in partnership with industry, retailers, states, and utilities, should develop and implement a public outreach program in support of deployment of solid-state lighting.
The DOE program has had many accomplishments since it began funding SSL research in December 2000. There have been more than 230 cost-shared R&D-funded projects that have resulted in more than 245 patents and, as discussed in Chapter 1, many SSL products are currently on the market with efficacies around 125 to 135 lumens per watt,15 with some laboratory demonstrations reaching 200 lm/W.16 The lighting industry is very much aware of the market pressures and requirements for products with good lighting quality, in addition to high luminous efficacy. There is still significant discussion among the various stakeholders (regulators, industry, academics, and the IES) about exactly what high-quality lighting means. All agree that color rendering, good flicker performance, dimmability, and choice of color temperature are elements of good lighting quality, but the exact requirements for these performance features have not been agreed upon. Some research may be needed in order to achieve consensus in these areas.
FINDING: Laboratory demonstrations have approached the DOE’s goal to have 200 lm/W efficacy LED luminaire products available by 2025.
RECOMMENDATION 2-2: The Department of Energy should continue investments in cost-effective solutions at 200 lm/W at the luminaire level, while also considering reliability and quality of light. Quality of light needs to be defined with the help of all relevant stakeholders, including—but not necessarily limited to—regulators, manufacturers, efficiency advocates, and consumer advocates.
RECOMMENDATION 2-3: The Department of Energy should continue to allocate its limited resources to leverage those research and development programs that can have a significant impact on increased SSL deployment.
The last comprehensive energy bill signed into law was the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. As part of that bill, there were changes made to Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) for 13 products. Over the past year, Congress has been working on new comprehensive energy legislation that would include reforms to Part B of EPCA. The House passed its package in early December 2015, and the Senate passed a very different broader package in May 2016. At the time of this writing, the House and Senate are in the process of forming a conference committee to resolve the differences.
The recent administrations in Washington, D.C., and California have been very active in regulating lighting products for energy efficiency since the 2013 NRC report. In addition, several other state governments have shown an increased focus on recycling programs for mercury-containing products, affecting manufacturers of fluorescent and HID lamps through “extended producer responsibility.” According to this, manufacturers of products containing potentially harmful substances are responsible for conducting or at least funding proper collection and recycling programs so that these substances do not end up in landfills and ultimately pollute the ground water.
DOE has regulated traditional lighting products (incandescent reflector lamps, fluorescent and HID lamps and ballasts, as well as HID luminaires) over several rounds of rule makings.17 Given the advances in, and the focus of the industry on R&D on, SSL as opposed to traditional technologies,
13 See discussion on FTC’s Lighting Facts label at the end of this section.
14 See Salant (2014) and Energy Star, “NRDC Comments on ENERGY STAR Lamp Specification-Version 2.0 Draft 1,” March 12, 2015, https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/NRDC%20Comments.pdf.
15 DOE, “DOE Solid-State Lighting Program: Modest Investments, Extraordinary Impacts,” September 2016, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/ssl_overview_sep2016.pdf.
17 See, for example, Energy Conservation Program, Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Final Rule, Federal Register 74(133):34079-34179, July 14, 2009.
new rounds of rulemakings would have the effect of accelerating the transition to SSL by making lower-performing traditional lighting products obsolete through regulation. Since 2008, the lighting industry has gone through several rounds of DOE rulemakings for energy efficiency. In its public comments relating to the 2014 incandescent reflector lamp (IRL) rulemaking, NEMA commented18 that the five lighting rulemakings preceding the IRL rulemaking have resulted in a larger negative manufacturer net present value—the measure used in DOE’s manufacturer impact analysis—than the average in all rulemakings, while the national energy savings from three of those rulemakings have been lower than the average (see Figure 2.10). NEMA’s point was that final rules for lighting equipment have resulted in lower benefits and higher costs than for other typical appliances.
Since 2014, DOE has started two new lighting-related rulemakings, one for general service lamps, including regulation of standby power,19 and another for fluorescent lamp
18 See Kyle Pitsor, NEMA, letter to Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, regarding Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006, NEMA Comments GSFL IRL NOPR, June 30, 2014, http://www.nema.org/Policy/Pages/Rulemaking-Comments.aspx.
19 Energy Conservation Program, Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register 81(52):14528-14630, March 17, 2016.
In the current rulemaking on general service lamps, according to the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), DOE is proposing standards for LED and compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) general service lamps as incandescent lamp replacements. The proposed standards for integrated21 medium screw-base lamps and both integrated and non-integrated lamps with GU-2422 bases range from approximately 84 lm/W to just under 101 lm/W depending on the luminous flux in the range 310 lm to 2,000 lm.23 If this standard is adopted, it will eliminate currently manufactured CFLs from the market. Lamp companies have indicated generally that they are not investing in fluorescent technology anymore, and, indeed, GE Lighting recently announced that it will discontinue CFLs before the end of 2016,24 so CFLs will not be manufactured in or imported into the United States after the effective date of the Final Rule. In the 2,000 to 2,600 lm luminous flux range, the proposed rule has a reduced efficacy standard because LED’s are not currently available at the higher luminous flux, and the best CFL’s can meet that standard. In addition, DOE has concluded that it cannot consider new standards for halogen incandescent lamps, because of the Burgess amendment to Energy and Water appropriations bills, which prohibits DOE from spending appropriated funds on implementing new standards or enforcing the standards defined in EISA 2007 for incandescent lamps. It is unclear whether the 45 lm/W standard will apply to all general service halogen lamps in January 2020, or to the “fleet average” based on the shipments of various types (halogen and LED) of lamps. DOE has taken the position that because it is unable to conduct a rulemaking for incandescent lamps, the 45 lm/W backstop automatically applies, whereas industry is interpreting the statutory language (see Box 2.1) to allow a “fleet average” determination.25 As of this writing, the situation is still evolving.
In addition, DOE has started another rulemaking on fluorescent lamp ballasts. This rulemaking, too, is awaiting the publication of an NPRM and is expected to define minimum federal standards for fluorescent dimming ballasts for the first time. Given the natural market transformation to SSL, it is questionable whether this rulemaking will result in significant energy savings. However, since the California Energy Commission (CEC) has adopted an efficiency standard for fluorescent dimming ballasts that would—according to the lighting industry—eliminate the vast majority of 4-foot T8 and T5 lamp ballasts from the California market, one advantage of a federal rule would be to set a uniform national standard.
DOE has also interpreted that “certain LED drivers” may be in the scope of the External Power Supply rule published in February 2014 with an effective date of February 10, 2016. The lighting industry has worked with DOE and the energy efficiency community, with the result that Congress is now in the process of moving forward with a bill26 that would clarify that LED and OLED drivers are not external power supplies, and if they need to be regulated for energy efficiency, the Secretary of Energy is directed to do so through a separate rulemaking.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has required consumer lamps (light bulbs) to be labeled using what they call the Lighting Facts label since January 2012. An example of this label is shown in Figure 2.11. In its first report, this committee recommended that FTC conduct a study 2 years after the effective date of the labeling rule “to determine the effectiveness of the labeling and whether it could be improved by additions and/or changes.” To the best knowledge of this committee,27 such a study has not
20 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Correction, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register 79(203):2014-24985, October 21, 2014.
21 The term integrated lamp means a lamp that has a driver or ballast built into the enclosure with the light source (LED light engine or fluorescent tube) making it a single, non-separable product.
22 GU-24 bases were developed in response to requirements of the California residential building code in 2008 (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations). These bases have two pins, and they twist into the lamp holder (socket). Incandescent filament lamps including halogen lamps are not permitted to be manufactured using these bases. Adapters that would allow medium screw-base lamps to be inserted into GU24 lamp holders are likewise not permitted.
23 The range in light output that DOE is proposing to regulate covers the equivalent of just over 25 W incandescent lamps to just under 150 W incandescent lamps.
25 Personal communication with Clark Silcox, NEMA general counsel.
26 The House passed H.R. 4444 on February 29, 2016. The same language was included in S. 2102, the Senate Energy Bill discussed in Section 2.5. The EPS Improvement Act, as it is known by, is not controversial but it is, as of this writing, being considered as part of a comprehensive energy bill.
27 NEMA is also unaware of such a study by FTC. (Personal communication with Alex Boesenberg, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, NEMA, April 22, 2016).
been conducted, and there is at least anecdotal evidence that consumers do not understand the label, especially the lumen output and color designations. The lumen output of a lamp is an important concept to explain to consumers, who have been thinking about the “brightness” of a lamp using its power rating—watts. As lighting technology changes and energy efficiency improves, the equivalent lumen output to a 60 W incandescent lamp, for example, will be delivered by LED and other SSL products consuming far less power. As also discussed in the 2013 NRC report, DOE has a lighting facts label for SSL products that is often used with products that are not required to use the FTC label. Its use is voluntary, but sometimes consumers may see it on products that they purchase. It addresses similar aspects of performance as the FTC label, but in more technical terms, and is intended for the utilities and retailers as the primary audience. Since introducing it in 2014, the FTC has not conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of the labeling and whether it could be improved by additions and/or changes.
FINDING: Consumers find the FTC and DOE lighting facts labels difficult to understand. FTC still has the opportunity to study the label to determine its effectiveness.
RECOMMENDATION 2-4: The Federal Trade Commission needs to evaluate its label for effectiveness and revise it to make it more useful to consumers.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that it calls the Clean Power Plan in 2015. The rule requires states to implement measures to curb their carbon emissions. Energy efficiency is included as a way to comply with the requirements, so efficient lighting systems, which do reduce carbon emissions, would count toward the goal. The Supreme Court of the United States issued a stay on this rule on February 9, 2016,28 pending review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The EPA has recently published new versions of the Energy Star Lamps and Luminaires Specifications.29 The Energy Star specifications are primarily intended to cover residential grade consumer products, while the Design Lights Consortium (DLC), a project administered by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership,30 publishes specifications that are intended to complement the Energy Star lighting products, and focus primarily on commercial, industrial,
29 See Energy Star lamps website at https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/Lamps%20Version%202.0%20Updated%20Spec.pdf and Energy Star luminaires website at https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/Luminaires%20V2%200%20Final.pdf.
and outdoor lighting products. The specifications from both programs are commonly used as the basis for rebates and other financial incentives provided by the electric utilities to consumers, commercial end users, retailers, and distributors. For more discussion about DLC and incentive programs, see section, “Recent Changes in Incentive Programs.” With regards to the latest Energy Star specifications, the lighting industry has commented publicly31 that the specifications for lighting products include far more performance requirements than any other appliance specifications in the Energy Star program, where most appliance specifications focus just on energy efficiency. These performance requirements relate to “quality of light” as perceived by the consumer. See also Recommendation 2.6 and the discussion preceding it in the following section, “State Laws, Regulations and Voluntary Programs.”
As discussed in the 2013 NRC report on advanced SSL, the federal government is a major consumer of products that use and supply energy. Energy use in government buildings accounts for 2.2 percent of all building energy consumption in the United States,32 and it costs the government about $7 billion each year to heat, cool, light, and provide electricity to buildings.33 The 2013 NRC report concluded (Recommendation 6-8) that government agencies that manage building assets can play a role in deployment of energy efficient SSL. Recommendation 6-8 recommended that the Office of Management and Budget should develop criteria for determining life-cycle costs and for including social costs in evaluating energy purchases and should incorporate this methodology into agency procurements. This has not been done. DOE has extensive expertise in applying life-cycle costing through its appliance and equipment energy efficiency standards program, and this could serve as a template for other federal efforts (DOE, 2014a). In addition, a March 2015 Executive Order directs federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a minimum of 40 percent by 2025 from 2008 levels. Purchasing of advanced SSL will assist agencies in meeting those goals.34 In federal procurement programs, the government should use life-cycle cost as the financial driver in purchase decisions, not first cost of equipment, but the committee could find no evidence that it is doing so.
The Federal Energy Management (FEM) line item of the Federal Energy Management Program is developing a new voluntary leadership challenge in FY 2017 to accelerate progress in reducing energy intensity in government energy-intensive facilities. According to the DOE FY 2017 budget submission, in FY 2017, the focus will be on promising building-related technology such as high-performance indoor lighting.
FINDING: Purchasing advanced SSL products and systems will assist federal agencies in meeting energy efficiency and GHG emissions goals. Such purchases could be facilitated through life-cycle cost accounting.
RECOMMENDATION 2-5: The Department of Energy should work with the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidelines for the use of life-cycle cost analysis in government procurement activities.
California is aggressive in regulating products that DOE has not regulated, using the authority granted to it by the 10th Amendment35 in the U.S. Constitution. Product (Title 20) and building (Title 24 Part 6) regulations in the California Code of Regulations have been used aggressively by the CEC to meet the ambitious energy savings goals set by the California legislature in 2015 in the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act.
California has for some time had a voluntary residential lighting specification for SSL products that are eligible for utility rebates (CEC, 2012), including a requirement for minimum color rendering performance, expressed in terms of the CIE General Color Rendering Index as Ra = 90 or higher. In 2015, this specification became the basis for a proposed minimum standard for SSL under Title 2036 of the California Code of Regulations and was adopted on January 29, 2016, by the CEC with an effective date of January 1, 2018. This standard includes several other minimum performance specifications37 that, according to NEMA (2015a), are likely not possible to meet simultaneously, so that only a very few currently available SSL products qualify. This raises the perennial issue of “technological feasibility.”38
31 See, for example, NEMA, “NEMA Comments on Draft ENERGY STAR® Program Lamp Specification v2.0 Final Draft,” December 18, 2015, https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/NEMA%20Comments_4.pdf.
33 DOE, “Federal Laws & Requirements Search,” http://www4.eere.energy.gov/femp/requirements/guidelines_filtering, accessed March 7, 2017. Note: The federal government spends $20 billion annually on energy, but a large fraction of that is on non-building energy use.
34 “Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade,” Executive Order 13693 of March 19, 2015.
35 The 10th Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In practice, for lighting products this means that whatever DOE does not regulate, the States (in particular California) are authorized to regulate. DOE’s constitutional authority is based on the so-called commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the U.S. Congress shall have the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
36 Appliance Efficiency Regulations are found in Title 20, Sections 1601-1608 of the California Code of Regulations.
37 In addition to a minimum efficacy and CRI, the regulations specify minimum performance requirements for color temperature, color consistency, power factor, lumen maintenance, standby power, rated life, survival rate (for compliance with requirements in Title 24 Joint Appendix 8) and audible noise.
38 California law requires efficiency standards to demonstrate that the
Also, as discussed above, DOE has begun a rulemaking on general service lamps and small-diameter directional lamps that affect these same SSL products that when effective,39 will preempt this California standard. Thus, California consumers could be subject to a short-term lack of SSL product availability (approximately 2 years starting in January 2018).
Additionally, the CEC has indicated that California will adopt the 45 lm/W minimum standard on January 1, 2018—2 years earlier than the rest of the nation, as authorized by EISA 2007, eliminating halogen lamps from the California market at that time. For the calendar years 2018 and 2019, it is possible that California consumers will be able to purchase only those SSL products that meet the Title 20 standard, and any remaining CFL products. NEMA has identified an estimated six or seven SSL products available in the market today, and they are commercial-grade products and thus quite expensive. If all of this plays out as predicted here, it will be very confusing to consumers. However, in their January 2016 business meeting, commissioner Weisenmiller expressed CEC’s view that efficiency standards drive product development; that California has a global role in market transformation; and that consumers select inefficient products if they are available (see CEC, 2016c; pp.122-125). Such an approach, of unilaterally defining performance requirements for many aspects of lighting products, may overlook the benefits of allowing consumer choice that could be ascertained through consulting with stakeholders.
FINDING: The CEC’s minimum standards for multiple performance parameters, in addition to energy efficiency, in general service lamps has limited consumer choice and made lamps expensive.
RECOMMENDATION 2-6: The Department of Energy should convene all stakeholders, including regulators, manufacturers, and advocates, to seek agreement on which of the performance parameters that are not related to energy efficiency will need to be subject to minimum performance specifications.
In the same rulemaking for general service lamps, the CEC has also defined a standard for the maximum standby power consumption of connected (or “smart”) lighting devices as 0.2 W. Without separating standby functionality from secondary functionality in these products, such a low level could limit innovation and thus limit additional value added features. For example, the development of connected (smart) lighting systems may provide additional functions that benefit users, such as lighting that aims to enhance the health of occupants. Some of these functions have little to do with providing illumination, but some of these operations (e.g., occupant sensing) have the potential to drastically reduce the energy consumed by lighting. These systems will consume a small amount of power, depending on the service that they provide, even when the lighting is off. At this time, regulators do not appear to understand these developments sufficiently.40 Instead, they are focusing on the luminous efficacy of the lighting system when illumination is provided and standby power consumption when the lighting is switched off. If the function of the standby mode is only to power the lighting equipment sufficiently to get input from sensors and other devices to turn lighting on when it is needed, limiting standby power consumption to a reasonable level makes sense. This issue is further discussed in Chapter 4 in the section, “Product Design and Specification.”
FINDING: Regulators, such as DOE and CEC, have started to adopt standards that limit standby power consumption in lighting products.
RECOMMENDATION 2-7: The Department of Energy, the California Energy Commission, and other regulators should consider standby power consumption separately from the power consumption of secondary functions of lighting products, so that the development of innovative lighting products is not impeded.
The CEC has concluded a rulemaking on dimming ballasts for fluorescent lamps. The commission indicated during the rulemaking process that its intent was to eliminate the least efficient products from the California market. The test procedure initially defined the total output to the lamps from the ballast as the useful power and the efficiency was defined as the total output divided by the input (= ballast losses + total output). The lighting industry agreed with this interpretation. However, in May 2016, the CEC appeared to have reversed itself and defined the useful power to be the lamp arc power (which produces light), while counting the lamp filament heating as part of the ballast loss. The minimum standards that were adopted by the CEC in 2015 are high enough that
requirements are technologically feasible and economically justified. However, there is no definition of “technologically feasible.” The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) makes reference to “maximum technologically feasible” in its requirements. See California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act of 1974, also known as the Warren-Alquist Act, website at http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/Warren-Alquist_Act/; and Assembly Bill 32 Overview website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm; see, for example, Part 4 clause 38560.
39 The attorney for the CA Energy Commission who spoke on April 20, 2016, at the DOE public meeting stated his belief that the preemption would be effective when the federal rule is effective. The representative from DOE’s general counsel’s office (Dan Cohen) asserted that California is already preempted since the federal rulemaking has started. The NEMA counsel (Clark Silcox) thinks that preemption begins when the federal rule is published. In any case, no one is questioning that the California Title 20 standard will become obsolete; it is just a matter of when.
40 Pursuant to Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations, the rule for Small Diameter Directional Lamp, Portable Luminaires, and General Service Light-Emitting Diode Lamps requires a standby power consumption of 0.2 W or less starting January 1, 2019. See CEC (2016b, p. 14). The language was adopted on January 27, 2016.
virtually no dimming ballasts would have met them with this interpretation. After many rounds of discussions with the industry, and nearly 2 months with no dimming ballasts having been certified for sale in the CEC database, the commission informed the lighting industry in late August that it was going back to the 2015 definition of ballast output power. Fluorescent dimming ballasts are once again available for sale in California, and renovation and construction projects can continue.
In the meantime, the building regulations (Title 24 Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) that were adopted by the CEC in June 2015 with an effective date of January 1, 2017, only allow high-efficacy products to be used in residential new construction. The building regulations for the first time since before the 2001 version allow the use of screw-base luminaires to qualify as high efficacy—except not in recessed downlights—but with the provision that screw-based lamps as well as recessed downlights must comply with the numerous performance requirements of Joint Appendix 8 to Title 24 Part 6. Halogen lamps do not comply with these requirements, so that from the effective date of the new Title 20 regulation (January 1, 2018) until the federal regulation for general service lamps becomes effective (projected to be near the beginning of the year 2020), lamp choices for residential new construction in California could be very limited.
Other states have not enacted energy efficiency regulations for SSL products to date. Instead, there are a few states (e.g., Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Washington) where manufacturers have been required to either organize or financially support recycling programs for mercury-containing consumer lamps. With the apparent demise of the CFLs (see, e.g., the announcement by GE Lighting that they will discontinue to supply CFLs before the end of 201641), these programs can be expected to see decreasing participation over time. Linear fluorescent lamps and HID lamps used in commercial and industrial facilities are already, by and large, recycled by a well-established recycling industry.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/IES (2016) Standard 90.1-2013 (ANSI/ASHRAE/IES, 2016) is the latest standard covering the energy efficiency requirements for commercial and high-rise residential buildings. Currently, three States (Maryland, New Jersey, and Vermont) have adopted the equivalent of Standard 90.1-2013, as shown in Figure 2.12. The lighting power density requirements in Standard 90.1-2013 were still based on traditional technology, so that, for example, T8 fluorescent lighting was used as a basis for lighting power density requirements for office lighting.
Standard 90.1-2016 is in development and, based on current proposals, will have many building space types with lighting power density allowances based on LED performance. The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) cites Standard 90.1 as a compliance option for commercial buildings, along with its own prescriptive requirements that typically follow the spirit of Standard 90.1. New versions for both are published every 3 years, and the IECC version that is published 2 years after each publication of Standard 90.1 is typically considered to be equivalent to the immediately previous version of Standard 90.1. IECC 2018 is, therefore, expected to have lighting power density allowances that are based on SSL performance. Based on historical adoption rates, as illustrated in Figure 2.12, the lighting designs for new commercial buildings are expected to be based on SSL starting around 2018 to 2020, depending on the location.
In California, where the CEC publishes the state’s own building energy code, known as Title 24 Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, lighting power density allowances were in some cases based on SSL in the 2016 version and may be expected to form the basis for virtually all applications in the 2019 version.
Recently, building energy codes have started to stipulate that alterations to lighting installations comply with both the lighting power density allowance and the control requirements. In California, several small retrofitters commented42 to the CEC that this constituted an unreasonable burden on the end user and started to cause those retrofitters to lose business. As a response, the CEC loosened the alteration requirements in the 2016 version of Title 24 Part 6,43 so that according to the new code, alterations only need to address lighting power density requirements. The balance between achieving energy efficiency and keeping retrofits practical has not been easy to achieve, and the details for retrofit requirements can be expected to evolve.
DOE’s involvement in energy code development is based on a line item in its budget, which for FY 2017 requests $6.3 million (DOE, 2016c; p. 236). As such, it appears to be adequately funded. DOE staff participate actively in ASHRAE meetings and IECC hearings, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has ample support to help with code development.
The lighting industry and many other stakeholders are keenly aware of the problems consumers experience with CFLs (see pages 28 to 32 of NRC ) and do not want
41 Diane Cardwell, op. cit.
to repeat those mistakes with LEDs. Nonetheless, two characteristics of screw-based LED lamps have the potential to create dissatisfaction. The first issue is the relatively small amount of space available for the driver circuit in a screw-based LED lamp intended to serve as a replacement for the incandescent lamp (shown in Figure 2.13). Incandescent lamps have inherent thermal inertia—the light output continues even when the mains voltage reaches zero—but LEDs do not have the same characteristics. The light output of the LED will stop immediately when power ceases to be applied. Therefore, the light output is modulated according to the 60 Hz mains voltage input, especially in low-cost driver designs, to a much larger extent than it is with filament lamps, resulting in higher percentage flicker. The driver design has to specifically address this issue in order for the flicker effect to be mitigated—usually by adding energy storage so that voltage to the LED continues to be available through the main voltage zero crossings.
The second issue, because LEDs are energy efficient, is that they have a lower power than the incandescent lamps with an equivalent light output, which causes compatibility issues with dimmer circuits that were designed for incandescent lamps. Traditional incandescent dimmers have a minimum load requirement, ranging typically from 20 W to 40 W, which in many LED applications is higher than the total LED load. A different dimmer design is required for LED lamps to operate reliably.
The lighting industry has started to address both of these issues through the development of standards for flicker performance and lamp-dimmer compatibility. NEMA SSL 7A is a standard that describes basic compatibility between an LED lamp and a dimmer, with requirements and test procedures for both products. The first version of SSL 7A was published in 2013 (NEMA, 2013), and a revision was published in early 2016 (NEMA 2015b). NEMA SSL 7B, which is currently under development, is a performance standard for LED lamps and dimmers that is expected to address dimming performance (such as range of light output and smoothness of dimming), level of audible noise generated by the lamp and dimmer, as well as stability of light output. For the last performance characteristic, SSL 7B will cite another NEMA standard—a standard covering temporal lighting artifacts (such as flicker)—that is currently also under development.
Several ANSI standards already exist for lamp shapes and physical dimensions, and new ones will be developed
as new LED lamps are introduced to the market.44 These standards ensure that LED replacement lamps fit into the lighting fixtures where they replace traditional technology products. The Zhaga Consortium is a global lighting industry organization established in 2010 with the purpose of standardizing LED light engines and associated components. It currently has 144 members, comprised primarily of manufacturers in the lighting industry, and has developed an extensive range of standards that address mechanical, electrical, thermal, and photometric properties of LED light engines and other components that they are connected to in a lighting installation.
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in the United States first published UL 8750 in 2009 to address safety requirements for LED equipment. Other UL standards are in development to cover safety requirements for other SSL products. Internationally, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has published a series of standards that cover various safety and electromagnetic compatibility requirements for SSL. These UL and IEC standards are well established in the market. UL has also started a Class P LED driver program that is expected to help with the adoption of LED lighting. Until now, luminaire manufacturers have had to test each different driver using the UL testing method, and list each driver in the luminaire construction file, in order to have the luminaire listed for all desired combinations. This put LED lighting at a disadvantage because with fluorescent luminaires any UL-listed ballast can be used as long as the temperature at a designated location on the ballast does not exceed the maximum indicated by the ballast manufacturer. The luminaire manufacturer is permitted to conduct this testing in its own laboratory without incurring additional certification costs. When using LED drivers that have been certified through the Class P driver program, the luminaire manufacturer is permitted to substitute one driver for any other Class P driver by just performing the temperature test, and will retain the UL listing of the luminaire. This program is just starting, so it is too early to comment on results.
The public utilities commissions in many states have directed electric utility companies to spend some percentage of their revenue on programs that provide incentives to end users to improve energy efficiency in their buildings. These programs are required as a market transformation tool because new products that are more energy efficient than the ones they replace are typically also more expensive. Such has been the case with lighting products as well.
Utilities have typically relied on nonprofit organizations that were specifically set up for the purpose of developing model incentive programs, rather than developing the programs on their own. The most active of these organizations are the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, based in Boston; the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership, also based in Boston; and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, in Portland, Oregon. These programs have led to a certain level of consistency among participating utilities, but most of the programs are concentrated in the coastal areas with dense populations—utilities in these regions operate with less reserve capacity than in other regions, so energy efficiency programs are seen as an effective tool to ensure that there are no disruptions in service. Building additional generation is expensive and has a long lead time before it is available. In addition, the California Investor Owned Utilities have budgeted staff time to develop and administer their own programs, such as that run by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) (see Box 2.2). Consequently, electric utilities operating in several states have provided rebates and other such incentives to residential customers for the use of energy efficient lighting products, such as CFLs. In many of these residential programs, the EPA Energy Star program has been either directly cited as a requirement or otherwise used as guidance to qualify products. In some cases, utilities even purchased qualifying CFLs and gave them out to residential consumers free of charge. As already noted, consumer reactions to CFLs were not always positive, so the CFL programs have ended or are about to end, and some of them have been replaced by LED programs. LED market share is still quite
44 ANSI C78 committee activities are almost entirely devoted to SSL today.
small, with NEMA estimating that shipments of A-line LED lamps are about 5 percent of the total, CFLs and halogen A-lamps making up the majority. Nevertheless, Efficiency Vermont has reported45 a 46 percent market penetration in 2014 of screw-base LED lamps, with a 2018 projection of 75 percent market penetration. It attributes this success to the utility programs in Vermont.
The Design Lights Consortium (DLC) produces a Qualified Products List for commercial lighting products, including LED products. This list is commonly used by utilities to determine product eligibility for their efficiency programs. The criteria for inclusion in the Qualified Products List includes system efficacy, power factor, harmonic distortion, correlated color temperature (CCT), color rendering index (CRI), warranty, and lumen maintenance. The DLC requires manufacturers to follow appropriate testing procedures (e.g., IES LM-79, IES LM-80, IES TM-21) and have their results independently verified, and it requires qualified SSL products to use DOE’s Lighting Facts label. Installation-specific criteria, such as glare, application efficacy, and dimmability, are not considered or reported. Manufacturers must pay a fee to include their products on the Qualified Products List, whereas Energy Star and Lighting Facts are free. In addition to the Qualified Products List, the utility efficiency programs are starting to make use of lighting systems and “advanced lighting controls” (including occupancy sensors and daylight sensors) to replace the component based approach of the past. Accordingly, DLC is developing specifications for advanced lighting control systems. The annual fee for a manufacturer to register a qualifying lighting system is $14,500. The incentive programs that are being piloted today offer the end user a rebate of 20-50 cents per square foot of renovated or newly constructed space for these types of advanced lighting control systems.
Solid-state lighting research is funded by governments in Europe, China, Japan, and Korea.46 The European Commission and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research provide a combined funding of at least $70 million per year, almost triple that of the DOE budget. It is harder to find estimates for spending by the Asian governments, but the total government spending in China and Japan has been estimated to be more than 10 times that of DOE. Even in Korea, with a smaller economy, government spending has been almost the same as in the United States.
The remaining sections of this chapter focus on the phase out of traditional incandescent and halogen lighting and their replacement with SSL products in various parts of the world.
The European Commission regulates energy efficiency and related requirements for lighting products that are placed into market in the European Union (EU) through several directives and regulations, such as the Energy Using Products Directive (ErP Dir. 2009/125/EC) and the Energy Labelling Directive (2010/30/EU).
The phase out of nondirectional filament lamps will be in effect, subject to implementing legislation by member states, in the EU by September 2018. Directional incandescent lamps will be phased out in September 2016. The exception is low-voltage (primarily MR16) lamps, which will not be completely phased out but will have requirements for increased efficacy and increased life rating compared to the current standard.47 The effect will be an increase in price for the remaining halogen MR16 lamps.
The market penetration of LED products in Europe has been relatively modest48 with a market share of about 5 percent and installed base of 1.3 percent in 2013. This is comparable or even lower than the corresponding figures in the United States.
The European Commission has also implemented energy labeling regulations for all lamp products. Currently, there are several schemes on the market, with efficiency categories from A to G, A+++ to D, and others, causing some confusion with consumers. In July 2015, the commission proposed to revamp and simplify these labels back to a single category with efficiencies from A to G. An example of these labels is shown in Figure 2.14.
As a result of the self-certification of lighting products in the European Union relating to the energy efficiency label, as well as the so-called CE-mark indicating conformity with product safety regulations, there is a higher level of market surveillance in the EU regarding noncompliant products compared to the United States. Despite that, it is reported that many noncompliant products are imported into the EU—for example, incandescent lamps have been imported as heat lamps in relatively large quantities.49 The self-certification practice in the EU for labeling products to be in compliance with regulatory requirements has led to an increased need for market surveillance and a large number of imported products that do not comply with the requirements.
45 Dan Mellinger, 2014 DOE SSL Market Development Workshop, Detroit, Mich.
46 N. Bardsley, “Government Support for R&D in Solid State Lighting,” January 15, 2016.
47 The efficacy standards for MR16 GU.53 lamps will be as follows: minimum 180 lumens for 20 watt; 300 lumens for 35 watt; and 540 lumens for 50 watt lamps. See Official Journal of the European Union L 342, December 14, 2012, p. 15.
48 VITO, “Preparatory Study on Light Sources for Ecodesign and/or Energy Labelling Requirements: Final Report, Task 7,” released October 31, 2015, http://ecodesign-lightsources.eu/sites/ecodesign-lightsources.eu/files/attachments/LightSources%20Task7%20Final%2020151031.pdf.
49 See, for example, Reuters, “German ‘Heatball’ Wheeze Outwits EU Light Bulb Ban,” Green Business News, October 15, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-heatballs-idUSTRE69E3FS20101015.
In Japan, there is no government mandated phase-out of incandescent lighting, nor any formal energy efficiency regulations for lighting products. Instead, the Japanese Parliament has passed a fairly general act on the Rational Use of Energy, which authorizes the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to enforce certain energy efficiency measures in various applications, such as in buildings. Nevertheless, the Japanese market has voluntarily transitioned to energy efficient lighting products, mostly LED lighting at this point, following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that caused the subsequent shut down of all nuclear power plants. Although the market share of LED replacement lamps at 8 percent is quite modest, new LED luminaires already account for 70 percent of the luminaire sales.50 Japan has the highest level of market penetration of SSL products (installed in sockets) in the world, which has happened without government regulation. The government has proposed a ban on the manufacture and importation of fluorescent lamps starting in 2020.51
The Japanese lighting industry expects all new luminaire shipments to be using SSL technology by 2020, and the Japanese government has set a goal to have the entire installed base of luminaires in buildings as well as outdoors converted to SSL by 2030.
Many other governments regulate lighting products for energy efficiency and are starting programs to phase out incandescent lamps. Cuba was the first country to ban all filament lamps in 2005, forcing the residential market completely to CFLs in that country, and Australia followed by phasing out traditional incandescent lamps in 2009 while keeping halogen lamps available. China has implemented the first three stages of a phase-out, and only lamps rated less than 60 W are available. The country is in an evaluation phase to determine whether further phase-outs are necessary. The market penetration of LED lighting products in China is quite high, ranging between 20 and 40 percent depending on application.52 Other European countries as well as Russia and Israel follow programs similar to those in the EU, and Canada’s program is very similar to that in the United States. The 2013 NRC report includes a table (NRC, 2013, p. 29) that contains information about incandescent lamp phase-out in 23 countries and regions. In addition, the United National Environment Programme runs its en.lighten Initiative and has a well-designed website that gives the current status of filament lamp phase-out in most of the countries in the world.53
Adler, J.H. 2016.Supreme Court puts the brakes on EPA’s clean power plan. Washington Post. February 9.
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES (American National Standards Institute, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers and Illuminating Engineering Society). 2016. “Standard 90.1- Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.” New York and Atlanta, Ga.
51 LEDinside, “Japan to Phase-out Incandescent and Fluorescent Lights by 2020,” November 27, 2015, http://www.ledinside.com/news/2015/11/japan_to_phase_out_incandescent_and_fluorescent_lights_by_2020.
52 China-LED, “2014 China LED General Lighting Industry Market Research Report Released,” February 12, 2015, http://www.china-led.net/news/201502/12/18491.html.
Cardwell, D. 2016. G.E. to phase-out CFL bulbs. New York Times. February 2.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2012. Voluntary California Quality Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Lamp Specification: Final Staff Report. CEC-400-2012-016-SF. Sacramento, Calif.
CEC. 2015. Lead Commissioner Hearing on Proposed Revisions to Title 24 Parts 1, 6, and 11: March 3, 2015 Transcript. Docket 15-BSTD-01. Sacramento, Calif.
CEC. 2016a. Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2015-037-CMF. Sacramento, Calif.
CEC. 2016b. “Proposed Revised Express Terms, 15-Day Language for Small Diameter Directional Lamp, Portable Luminaires, and General Service Light-Emitting Diode Lamps.” Docket Number 15-AAER-6. Document Number CEC-400-2015-044-15DAY-REV. Sacramento, Calif.
CEC. 2016c. “Transcript of the 01/27/2016 Business Meeting.” Docket Number 16-BUSMTG-01. Sacramento, Calif.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2014a. Energy Savings Forecast of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program. Washington, D.C.: Navigant Consulting, Inc. August.
DOE. 2014b. Energy Conservation Standards Activities: Report to Congress. Washington, D.C. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f7/2014_feb_report_to_congress.pdf.
DOE. 2015. Solid-State Lighting R&D Plan. Washington, D.C. May.
DOE. 2016a. Solid-State Lighting R&D Plan. Washington, D.C. June.
DOE. 2016b. Energy Savings Forecast of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications. Washington, D.C. September.
DOE. 2016c. FY 2017 Congressional Budget Request: Volume 3. DOE/ CF-0121. Washington, D.C. February.
DOE. 2016d. Revolution . . . Now: The Future Arrives for Five Clean Energy Technologies—2016 Update. Washington, D.C.
Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015. Adoption of Light-Emitting Diodes in Common Lighting Applications. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program. Washington, D.C. July.
NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association). 2013. “Phase Cut Dimming for Solid State Lighting: Basic Compatibility.” SSL 7A-2013. Arlington, Va.
NEMA. 2015a. “California Energy Commission Pursuing Regulatory Requirements to Mandate LED Bulbs That Are Less Efficient, More Expensive.” December 18. http://www.nema.org/news/Pages/California-Energy-Commission-Pursuing-Regulatory-Requirements-to-Mandate-LED-Bulbs-That-Are-Less-Efficient-More-Expensive.aspx.
NEMA. 2015b. “Phase Cut Dimming for Solid State Lighting: Basic Compatibility.” SSL 7A-2015. Arlington, Va.
NRC (National Research Council). 2013. Assessment of Advanced Solid-State Lighting. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Pike Research. 2011. Energy Efficient Lighting for Commercial Markets. Boulder, Colo.
Salant, K. 2014. Clearing up some of the confusion on LED lights. Washington Post, February 3.
York, D., S. Nadel, E. Rogers, R. Cluett, S. Kwatra, H. Sachs, J. Amann, and M. Kelly. 2015. New Horizons for Energy Efficiency: Major Opportunities to Reach Higher Electricity Savings by 2030. Report Number U1507. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.